Management evaluation

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly determined that the former staff member’s claims for compensation under Appendix D based on UNAMID living conditions were not receivable because he had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies. The UNAT reaffirmed the principle that staff members must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to litigation.

The UNAT further held that the UNDT erred in reviewing the merits of the x‑ray machine injury claim while a medical board review was pending. The UNAT found that both elements of the Appendix D claim were premature and should have been declared...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding the staff member’s challenge to the non‑installation of dependents receivable because the request for management evaluation was filed outside the mandatory 60‑day deadline under Staff Rule 11.2(c). The UNAT found that Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute prohibits waiving or suspending this deadline and that the UNDT acted beyond its jurisdiction by deciding that the Administration had waived the timeliness argument.

The UNAT further held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the denial of the optional reduced non‑family service allowance was...

The UNAT held that the staff member’s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

The UNAT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...

The UNAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

The UNAT found...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that ATR’s claim for compensation as a victim of sexual harassment was not receivable because the contested administrative decision did not concern compensation and the applicable legal framework does not provide for such entitlement. The UNAT noted that while Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute allows for compensation for harm, this remedy must relate to the administrative decision under review, which in this case concerned disclosure of disciplinary measures, not compensation.

The UNAT further held that the UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the Administration lawfully imposed the disciplinary measure of demotion by one grade with deferment for three years of promotion eligibility and gender‑sensitivity training. The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly applied the governing legal framework, including Staff Rule 1.2(f) and ST/SGB/2008/5, in determining that the staff member’s conduct, an inappropriate remark referencing nudity and a stroking gesture, physical intimidation of a colleague, and leering at female staff, constituted sexual harassment and workplace harassment.

The...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had applied for vacancies of different posts, at different times, with different selection processes, and had not been selected for different reasons. The UNAT found that the UNDT had correctly decided that each of these decisions was separate and there was no evidence that they were related. The UNAT held that she had not met her burden of showing that the impugned Judgment was defective.

The UNAT held that the application in respect of the post in Pretoria was clearly out of time and in respect of the post in Nairobi premature and, as such, not receivable...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had been notified of the reclassification of the post he encumbered by e-mail without comments on the basis for the decision. The UNAT also noted that he had not been promoted to the reclassified post before separation from service.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had correctly determined that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known by the date he received notification of the reclassification or, at the very latest, by the date the vacancy of the reclassified post was advertised in Inspira, that his post had been reclassified and that he had not...

The UNAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The UNAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The UNAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

The UNAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests “to clarify” the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...